Topic on User talk:Pacsonic9000

Jump to navigation Jump to search

The negative Scratch reception wikis

Summary by Pacsonic9000

Annoying person again.

Money12123 (talkcontribs)

Hi, I need to talk to you about the negative Scratch reception wikis that were deleted a while ago. Basically, it appears that Crummy Scratchers Wiki was considered "gossip" by the Scratch Team, and you along with the other administrators accused them (and the person who reported them) of "not taking criticism". Regardless though, several users were blocked from Scratch, and as a result, the negative Scratch reception wikis were shut down. However, I would like to tell you that I believe that you were wrong in this situation.

You see, CRUSW contained a lot of pages with unsourced claims. Just by looking at the featured articles I can give some examples:

  1. Rebecca Spark
  2. RacerIIIFury (does at least try to source things, but still has several unsourced claims overall)
  3. Kaj
  4. BorisErufusFanAgain (and no, the "links" don't count, it's not clear what proves what)
  5. Newhungrymosquito
  6. NatureGirl82
  7. Blockengineersbro
  8. RufatRussia
  9. TycoonNoob123
  10. WolvesRock1767
  11. Rockeromar200 (and no, the screenshots are not good enough, they are unreliable as they can be edited)

Basically my point is, you were creating lots of pages with a lack of sources, therefore you had a lack of proof of your claims, which shows that you were basically spreading rumours. So, in other words, the reason why users were blocked isn't because the Scratch team can't take criticism, it's because when users create pages with lots of unsourced claims, you're spreading rumours. I am not saying this to be rude or anything, I am trying to explain my opinion because I believe you've got this all wrong. Although I do think that blocking users was a bit too harsh, I still see why they did it. See also this thread.

My reason for telling you this is because that I feel that Crappy Scratch Projects Wiki should be restored. It is a reasonably good idea, as criticising Scratch projects is not usually problematic, and you can probably get it restored as the owner.

Money12123 (talkcontribs)

Also, about deleting the SML page, I don't think it should be deleted, just merged into the BSEW page.

Money12123 (talkcontribs)


Pacsonic9000 (talkcontribs)

1. I'm done with Scratch Wikis, 2. I think showing proof would have helped which we should have done but for some reason didn't think about doing so, 3. Scratch doesn't like anyone criticizing their website, database, users, and projects. And your claims on screenshots and links are invalid as that may be the only way to show proof and sometimes, people delete comments. Though I think I did have some links to archives.

Money12123 (talkcontribs)

Oh okay.